Low recoil deer rifle/cartridge?

Brewer, given your choices, 243 rifle or AR 15 upper, I’d recommend a 6.5 Grendel upper. Low recoil and very good for deer st the ranges you’re looking at. You can normally get inexpensive ammo to practice with. I hunt with a Grendel bolt action and it’s deadly on deer.

brewer12345 said:

Hmmm, as I look at recoil tables, maybe the 762x39 would make more sense. I already cast a lot of 30 cal bullets so I imagine I would have something suitable in my mold inventory. Could load it down as necessary.

Click to expand...

I loaded for my 7.62x39 at the same time I had a .308 and it was darn nice to be able to buy one bullet for both when I wanted to. 150 grainers do really well in the 7.62x39 and 123-125 class bullets over CFE BLK are just deadly.

Old Stumpy said:

The .243 has always been the traditional choice for low recoil and a woman's hunting rifle since the 1950s.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but that is rather insulting to women AND the kids who also shoot a .243. A .243 is a great round, capable of fulling a role in a multitude of situations. I know women, senior citizens, who prefer a 30-06...........there's no need for that insulting insinuation

As to low recoil tat depends on weight of the gun, weight of the projectile and velocity.

The .243 Winchester is fine and I also like the 7mm-08 Remington. Either is light recoil on the shooter and I guess much depends on how we define "light recoil" so the rifle stock and fit to shooter figure into things. Anyway .243 or 7-08 would work for me.

Ron

I've always thought it odd that a 243 was traditionally considered a kids and woman's deer rifle. I guess that says something about the marksmanship of grown men who need a bigger gun to make up for their lack of shooting skill.

I'd not feel the least bit handicapped hunting deer with a 243. It was designed to be a dual purpose deer/varmint round but in my opinion there are much better varmint rounds in 22 and smaller calibers. And the 243 might just be the ideal deer round. But I don't think it versatile enough to be a good choice for game bigger than deer. That is the only reason I don't own one. Bear season runs virtually the same dates as deer season here. If I were only deer hunting I'd be fine with one. Just something to keep in mind if there is any chance to hunt bigger game.

Either the 6.5 Grendel or 6.5 Creedmoor get you into a cartridge suitable for bigger game. The 6.5 Creedmoor has very little more recoil than 243 and the Grendel about the same. The 308 and 7-08 are considered lower recoil options, but compared to 243 there is a pretty significant jump going to either of those.

A 7mm-08 is a great low recoil caliber that is exceptional for hunting deer and elk and also a great caliber for long distance shooting as well. Even though it may be my perception but I have shot .243 rifles that seemed to have more recoil than the 7mm-08.

I know you didn't list it as an option. But a 6.5 with 120 grain bullets makes a low recoil deer rifle.
I gave my niece a 6.5x55 and my wife uses a 260 Remington.
Both are deer slayers and give a better blood trail than a 243.
7.62x39 makes a great close range deer rifle.

In an AR upper, .300 BLK.
In a bolt rifle, .243, or 7mm-08.

I chose my fire arms based on the affect they have on the intended game rather than how gentle they are on the other end.

It's kinda difficult to be humanely accurate with a rifle with too much recoil. That varies depending on the individual and how the rifle fits them. Every time this subject comes up, it tends to bring out the ego trips who want to say "if you can't handle a full house .338, don't bother to shoot deer rifles." OTOH, I recall Jim Shockey (in British Columbia) on his show saying he'd rather have hunting clients show up confident with their .270 than scared of their .338's. For much of North America a .243 is plenty.

brewer12345 said:

Well, all of this has been very interesting. It may all get put on hold for a while since it is hard to buy anything in the current market. I am beginning to think that the easiest thing to do might be to get a ruger american compact in 308. I already have suitable cast and jacketed bullets and powders. All I would need is a set of dies and some brass. That might about be doable in the current environment.

Click to expand...

Ok, I don't know what rules you have to play by, I DO have lots of experience with game taking and low recoil, and youth/lighter framed and /or specialty shooters, I have 4 kids, 1 wife, 1 friend who has grip problems from a broken neck, and another friend who has grip problems from genetics, and another friend who has grip/muscle problems from cancer in his youth. Top choices will be addressed differently based on your own preference.
Mini action in 6.5 grendel with a Boyd's at-1 and bipod.
Savage 10/11/16 etc with at-1 in .22-250/.243/7.62x39
Ar-15 in 6.5 g or 6.8 or .224 valk
Benelli r1 in .308 (my .270wsm feels ballpark 6.5 cm bolt but the 24" barrel is unwieldy for a youth though my 12 laughs as she pulls the trigger, so in .308 it would be a kitten no matter what load you ran, short lop is available and came on mine)
Remage/rugage .243 at-one
Darn near perfect setup would be a rem 788 carbine at one with 80-90 barnes/sierra/nosler/Hornady bullets loaded slightly down.
Key to ALL these is rifle FIT.

The 35 Rem you already own is pretty cheap. Just as simple as anything too.

brewer12345 said:

I am thinking about adding a low recoil deer rifle to the safe. I think there are two default options:

1) .243 in a modest priced rifle.

2) ??? caliber AR upper.

223/556 is not legal for deer where I live. I don't generally take shots farther than 150 yards on deer. This rifle might end up being used by my daughter, who is not keen on recoil. Am I missing something? What is a candidate for the upper?

I cast and reload, so if I can round up dies, brass and maybe some bullets I am not real worried about ammo availability.

Click to expand...

Here you go....
https://www.eurooptic.com/Mauser-M18-243-Win-22-Synthetic-5rd-Mag-Bolt-Action-Rifle-M180243.aspx

Bought one for myself just because the price was so reasonable. Add a Redfield Revenge scope https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1009707090 and there is plenty left over for bases, rings and ammo!

JMHO

I am a rifle recoil sissy and I like the 243. I have a friend that has doubled on two does at just shy of 300 yards with a 243, so I think it is plenty capable given shot placement. I’m much more tolerant of handgun recoil than rifle recoil... though I’m no MaxP! I stop at 44 magnum!

I try to sometimes look at things from a totally different angle. If this rifle wont be carried alot and instead will just be carried to the bench or into a blind or tree stand, consider adding weight to reduce recoil instead of using less bullet. Ruger American in 308 win recoils like a rifle length AR15 with 4lbs of lead added into the hollow stock. It's easily removable at least from the buttstock and makes it a real pussycat to shoot. I've also done this to my 243 ruger American and its soft shooting enough for a 3rd grade girl to shoot. More than 1 way to skin a cat.
Of course if it's being carried up and down mountains all day, disregard all I said.

There's not a lot of point to carrying a cartridge limited to low-recoil in a large, heavy gun. Just take a .30-06 or a 270 or whatever and handload it down to less recoil. Use H4895 reduced loads or Trail Boss and go as low as you want. When you're ready to put it on deer, make sure the bullet is designed for those velocities.

On the other hand, if you want to shrink the rifle so that it's no more than what's needed for a lower-recoil cartridge, bear in mind that you'll need to increase the proportion of weight to recoil energy to actually feel less recoil. If you drop your charge enough, a T3X Superlite can be made to feel low-recoil, but it's still a fairly long action. A quarter-bore or 6mm chambering with 80 grain bullets is going to feel like less recoil than a thirty caliber or larger with 180 grain or heavier bullets. You can also go shorter with a mini-action from Howa or CZ chambered in 7.62x39 or 6.5 Grendel. Those guns aren't ultra-light, but then if you want low-recoil you won't want them to be. They are fairly light, but still heavy for the amount of recoil energy the cartridges generate -- so they'll be low-recoil. The Ruger No. 1 also has a very short receiver, but weighs quite a bit. Handload light charges in the cartridge of your choice and it will be a low-recoil gun.

Also consider if you'll use an optic. Some of the optics out there weigh a lot. Boy they're nice, but they can add two pounds or more to the rifle. If you just want to lower felt recoil, get one. If by "low-recoil" you're looking for a smaller, lighter gun that won't recoil too much, then find a sight or optic that lowers your overall weight. It won't help with recoil, but if your goal is to downsize the whole rifle and not just cartridge, pay attention to the weight of optics.

Any cartridge can be low recoil if you handload it that way. Heavy guns result in less felt recoil. If you want a light-shooting minimalist cartridge you can get a little bit lighter rifle or a shorter mini bolt action. You can also get a short receiver with a single-shot.



Now if you want a gun for your daughter, you want to consider whether or not she'll carry it in the field or if someone will carry it for her. Low-recoil can be achieved by having plenty of weight, but if she will carry it, you'll want to think about downsizing the cartridge and the rifle. You'll also want to consider her size and particularly things like length of pull and whether the eye relief on any optic it has will work with her shorter length of pull (putting her eye closer to the eyepiece). Is the mount adjustable? Does it adjust far enough? Also consider whether she'll shoot off-hand, with a bipod, tripod, shooting sticks, or some other kind of rest.

If you want a specific recommendation to consider, here is what I would do:

Tikka T3X Super Lite in 6.5 Creedmoor.
Buy the T3 Adjustable stock for a short length of pull or buy a Boyd's At One stock with adjustable length of pull.
Get a Harris bipod and a sturdy tripod with a V rest.
Assuming she's already learned fundamentals of marksmanship with an air rifle or rimfire, she'll still want to practice with the deer rifle.
Load the 6.5 Creedmoor with Speer 90 grain TNT bullets for practice. Start with about 7 or 8 grains of Trailboss which will give about 1300 to 1500 fps and will shoot flat out to 100 yards.

For deer, load the 6.5 Creedmoor with Barnes 100 grain TTSX at about 2700 fps. This is a light load for Creedmoor, but enough for this bullet and for deer with a generous MPBR. Re-zero the scope if you were using Trailboss in practice. A 30 yard zero will give an MPBR of about 250 yards.

Another option is an AR-15 or a chassis-style bolt action like the Ruger Precision Rifle. For deer, you'll want a 6mm or 6.5mm chambering like Grendel or .243, 6 or 6.5 Creedmoor. The AR is tolerable for some people to carry, the 12 pound precision rifle is low-recoil and works fine in a blind. The telescopic stock on either will adjust to a short length of pull and the optic can be moved forward on the top rail to provide enough distance for the eye relief.

Did some of my best field shooting with a .243. I rarely use it anymore, but its still a fantastic cartridge for ANYONE who has the skill to use it.

jmr40 said:

I guess that says something about the marksmanship of grown men who need a bigger gun to make up for their lack of shooting skill.

Click to expand...

I don't know about that. If I can't hit a target repeatably and accurately with a .243 Winchester I likely won't do any better with a .308 Winchester or 30-06 Springfield or vice verse. Shooting, good hunting, requires developed marksmanship skills and a cartridge well suited for the game.

Ron

In your shoes, 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel or 7.62x39 upper is the route I would go. Collapsible stocks on ARs make it easy to fit the rifle to a smaller framed shooter and recoil will not be an issue. I’ve killed a bunch of deer and pigs with a 6.8 SPC and it is one of my favorite overall cartridges.

Bfh_auto said:

I know you didn't list it as an option. But a 6.5 with 120 grain bullets makes a low recoil deer rifle.
I gave my niece a 6.5x55 and my wife uses a 260 Remington.
Both are deer slayers and give a better blood trail than a 243.
7.62x39 makes a great close range deer rifle.

Click to expand...

A 125 gr. NP at ~ 2800 fps would make a dandy deer load.

Or even the 140 gr. Core-Lokt at ~ 2550 fps..




GR

Garandimal said:

A 125 gr. NP at ~ 2800 fps would make a dandy deer load.

Or even the 140 gr. Core-Lokt at ~ 2550 fps..

GR

Click to expand...

Hornady .277dia. 140gr SPBT in a .270Win. comes to mind. It seems, at 2500fps in an 8-9lb. rifle, it shouldn't recoil too badly. How it all interacts with the individual is the question.

Endless discussion. Research ballistics and pick one.

243 is the perfect choice in a bolt gun. Ruger American would be the one I would pick for a "budget" rifle. I'm 6'1" and 220lbs and I still prefer shooting the 243. I started with 243 as a kid and climbed the caliber ladder as I got older and I've climbed down the caliber ladder back to 243 again.

In an AR, I'd be looking hard the new Hornady 6mm ARC.

When faced with that decision a few years ago for my son when he was 12, I went with a Rem M7 is .260. I wanted something that he wouldn't outgrow.

For the 1st few years and 3 deer I loaded 100 grain Nosler BTs to "light" .243 velocity of 2800 FPS. From my box blind to the edge of our food plot is a little under 100 yds. Even in the little M7 it was a light recoiling load and his deer couldn't have been any deader. Couple years ago on a friends place he dropped a big doe at just under 200yds with it. Now I load 120s at 2930 FPS out of the M7's 20" tube and it's still a nice light load to shoot. He's killed 5 deer with it so far, so it looks like the concept is working.

I wouldn't hesitate to go with a .243, or 6mm. I haven't shot any deer with a .243, but I have with its cousin the 6mm Rem and never lost an animal.